Filing # 25919336 E-Filed 04/09/2015 05:23:25 PM

Filing # 25919336 E-Filed 04/09/2015 05:23:25 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, and CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 PAUL G. CASSELL, Plaintiffs, v. ALAN DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. I MOTION TO QUASH OR FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING SUBPOENA SERVED ON NON-PARTY JANE DOE NO. 3 Non-party Jane Doe 3, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.410(c)(1) 1, hereby moves for an order quashing the subpoena duces tecwn served on her by Defendant, or alternatively, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) for issuance of a protective order sharply limiting the scope of the subpoena. INTRODUCTION This Court should quash the subpoena issued to non-party Jane Doe No. 3 as it is unreasonable and oppressive. The Defendant is abusing the subpoena power in an effort to intimidate, harass and cause undue burden to a non-party. Indeed, Defendant - just days ago - publicly admitted that his goal of deposing Jane Doe No. 3 has nothing to do with this Florida Defamation Action; rather, he is trying to find a way to send this victim of sexual trafficking to "jail." "She was hiding in Colorado...but we found her and she will have to be deposed. The end ' For the limited purpose of the Motion to Quash or for Protective Order and resolving the scope of the subpoena and any enforcement issues, Jane Doe No. 3 voluntarily submits herself to this Court's jurisdiction. EFTA01078855 result is that she'll go to jail because she will repeat her lies and we'll be able to prove it and she will end up in prison for perjury." (emphasis added). See Exhibit 1, New York Daily News, April 7, 2015. Defendant has subjected Jane Doe No. 3 to horrific public attacks including publicly calling her a "prostitute" and a "bad mother" to her three minor children. See Exhibit 2, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015. Defendant has gone on a media blitz campaign against this non-party for statements she made under oath in a federal action: "The end result of this case should be she (Jane Doe No. 3J should go to jail, the lawyers should be disbarred and everybody should understand that I am completely and totally innocent." (emphasis added). See Exhibit 3, CNN International, New Day, January 6, 2015. "My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to speak in court." (emphasis added). See Exhibit 4, Australian Broadcasting System (ABC), January 6, 2015. Defendant also stated, in an interview in Newsmax, that he is "considering" bringing a lawsuit against Jane Doe No. 3. "And we're considering suing her for defamation as well, but right now she was trying to hide in Colorado and avoid service, but we found her and we served her and now she'll be subjected to a deposition." (emphasis added). See Exhibit 5, Newsmax, April 8, 2015. Defendant's own words demonstrate that he is abusing the subpoena power of this Court to try to get discovery that is irrelevant to this case, in the hopes of being able to intimidate Jane Doe No. 3 with the press and generate a claim against her. Considering the extensive abuse that Jane Doe No. 3 suffered as a minor child, and Defendant's threats and intimidation, it would be both unreasonable and oppressive to require this non-party to comply with this subpoena duces tecum. Accordingly, Defendant's subpoena should be quashed. See Exhibit 6, Defendant's Subpoena to Jane Doe No. 3. 2 EFTA01078856 BACKGROUND The underlying action before this Court is a defamation case filed by a former federal judge, Paul Cassell, and his colleague Brad Edwards, who represent various sexual trafficking victims in a case pending in the Southern District of Florida, specifically case no. 08-cv-80736- KAM, hereinafter ("CVRA case"). As a result of an affidavit filed in the CVRA case, Defendant went on a national media defamation campaign calling, among other things, former federal judge Paul Cassell and attorney Brad Edwards, "unethical lawyers" who should be "disbarred". See Exhibit 7, Today Show, January 5, 2015. In response to this national slander campaign by the Defendant, Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards filed a defamation case against Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Case No. CACE 15- 000072, hereinafter "Florida Defamation Action"). Defendant's statements against Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards are statements about their character as lawyers and do not directly involve non-party Jane Doe No. 3. Despite this fact, Defendant is abusing the subpoena power in this case by seeking documents from a non-party that are irrelevant to the defamation issue before this Court. Defendant is determined to find a way to harm non-party Jane Doe No. 3 and anyone who braves to represent her. Jane Doe No. 3 has good cause to be fearful of the Defendant in this matter based on Defendant's repetitive threats. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. This Court should not allow Defendant to abuse the subpoena power to further abuse this non-party. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide a vehicle for this Court to protect a non-party from a harassing, burdensome and unnecessary subpoena. As explained below, non-party Jane Doe No. 3 should be protected from having to be deposed in this matter or produce documents. Defendant's campaign of threats and intimidation should not be condoned by this Court and Defendant's subpoena should be quashed in its entirety. 3 EFTA01078857 ARGUMENT 1. This Court Should Quash Defendant's Abusive Subpoena In Its Entirety. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.410(c)( I) provides that the Court may "quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive." Id. The Court has discretion to evaluate the circumstances in determining whether the subpoena is "unreasonable and oppressive." Matthews v. Kant, 427 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). "The sufficiency thereof is a factual determination for the trial judge who is vested with broad judicial discretion in the matter, and whose order will not be overturned absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion." Id.; see also Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corp., 270 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (Fourth DCA quashing lengthy subpoena served on non-party who was not in control of documents as being "oppressive and unreasonable."). It is undisputed that Jane Doe No. 3 was sexually trafficked as a minor child by Jeffrey Epstein and he was sentenced for his crimes. Allowing the Defendant in this case to force this non-party to provide discovery on this highly sensitive topic would be both oppressive and unreasonable and serves no purpose other than to foster Defendant's publicly admitted and utterly baseless campaign to try to send Jane Doe No. 3 to "jail." The documents requested in Defendant's subpoena demonstrate the oppressive and unreasonable nature of the requests. Defendant, for example, seeks highly personal and sensitive information from this victim of sexual trafficking, including requesting her personal diary during the time when she was being sexually abused as a minor child. See Exhibit 6, Request no. 16. Defendant also demands that this non-party produce photographs and videos of her as a minor child while she was being sexually trafficked by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. See Exhibit 6, Request nos. 2, 3, 4 and 10. Defendant's unreasonable subpoena even includes a demand for this non-party's personal cell phone records for more than a three (3) year period during the time when she was a minor child being sexually trafficked. See Exhibit 6, Request no. 4 EFTA01078858 15. Defendant also demands items like personal financial documents from this non-party including payments she received from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the men he "lent" this minor child out to from 1999 — 2002. See Exhibit 6, Request no. 20. It is without question that Defendant is abusing the subpoena power in this case to conduct a fishing expedition in an effort to intimidate and harass this victim and to try to dig up information he can use in his openly stated "goal" to send this non-party to "jail." Jane Doe No. 3 is rightfully fearful of Defendant as he is an incredibly powerful individual and the legal counselor to convicted Jeffrey Epstein who sexually trafficked Jane Doe No. 3 for years when she was a minor child. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. Jane Doe No. 3 believes Defendant's goal is to abuse the subpoena power to get her into a deposition so he can harass and intimidate her by forcing her to discuss the abuse she had to withstand as a minor child. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. None of that childhood abuse is relevant to this case which involves the narrow issue of whether Defendant defamed two lawyers. Defendant's subpoena is both unreasonable and oppressive and should be quashed. See Matthews v. Kant, 427 So. 2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). 2. The Court Should Quash The Subpoena In Its Entirety. But At A Minimum, It Should Severely Limit The Production Requirements. In addition to its power to quash the subpoena, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) also allows the Court to protect a non-party from discovery that would result in "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense..." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 2003) (Florida Supreme Court overturning denial of protective order and holding that "[d]iscovery of certain kinds of information `may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature.") (internal quotations omitted). Matthews v. City of Maitland, 923 So. 2d 591, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (quashing discovery order where "[t]he compelled disclosure... would create a chilling effect on [petitioners] rights..."). The Court may determine that "the discovery 5 EFTA01078859 not be had" or that "the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions...". Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c). Defendant issued a vastly overbroad subpoena to this non-party which included 25 separate document requests, many with subparts. In addition to placing an undue burden on this non-party to have to search for the broad scope of materials requested, the document requests seek information that is irrelevant to the Florida Defamation Action and clearly intended to "embarrass and oppress" this non-party. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c). Defendant's overly broad subpoena to non- party, Jane Doe No. 3, goes so far as to seek documents relating to former President, Bill Clinton and former Vice President, Al Gore, which, even if such documents existed, would be absolutely irrelevant to the Florida Defamation Action. See Toledo v. Public Super Markets, Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4ih DCA 2010). Defendant's requests can be grouped into four key categories: (1) documents that contain highly personal and sensitive information sought only to harass, embarrass and intimidate the non- party; (2) documents unrelated to this action and, instead, intended to gain discovery relating to Defendant's admitted "goal" of putting this non-party in "jail," bringing a new case against Jane Doe No. 3, or related to the federal action; (3) documents that contain personal financial or other confidential information; and (4) privileged communications between the non-party and her lawyers. Non-party, Jane Doe No. 3, has filed specific objections as to each request sought in Defendant's subpoena as set forth in Exhibit 9. Here, Jane Doe No. 3 provides the Court with a sampling of the oppressive nature of the subpoena that is the subject of her detailed objections. a. Category 1 — Overly Broad Subpoena Requests Intended Solely to Harass. Embarrass and Intimidate the Non-Party by Seeking Highly Personal and Sensitive Information It is clear from the Defendant's requests that his intent is to intimidate and harass this non- party by seeking highly sensitive personal information that is irrelevant to this action. For example, Request no. 16 seeks "Any diary, journal or calendar concerning your activities between 6 EFTA01078860 January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002." Defendant is seeking personal diary information during the time this non-party was a minor child and a victim of sexual trafficking. There is no reason this non-party should be forced to produce her diary from when she was a child. See Peisach v. Anton, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989) (court of appeal holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by granting deposition of party's gynecologist which was only meant to invade privacy and intimidate and harass the party). Defendant also has a number of requests (Request nos. 2, 3, 4, 10 and 19) that seek "photographs" and "videos" of this non-party when she was a minor child and during the time she was the subject of sexual abuse. Photographs of Jane Doe 3 when she was a minor child are completely irrelevant to the matter before this Court. Defendant served this subpoena demand solely to intimidate, harass and embarrass this non-party and the Court should preclude this type of discovery set forth in Request Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 21. See Citimortgage, Inc. v. Davis, No. 50 2009 CA 030523, 2011 WL 3360318 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. April 4, 2011) (trial court granting protective order precluding a deposition noting "this deposition request is mere harassment" and had no relevance to the underlying dispute where the party was wrongfully using the discovery process for personal gain). b. Category 2 — Clear Abuse of the Subpoena Power By Seeking Documents Unrelated to this Action and Intended Instead to Provide Discovery for Other Actions Defendant is abusing the subpoena power of this Court by issuing subpoena requests that are intended to obtain discovery for the development of other actions against this non-party and are unrelated to the instant case. See Exhibit 5, Newsmax Interview ("And we're considering suing her for defamation as well, but right now she was trying to hide in Colorado and avoid service, but we found her and we served her and now she'll be subjected to a deposition."). Defendant has admitted that his "goal" is to put Jane Doe No. 3 in "jail" and he is using this Court's subpoena power to go on a fishing expedition in the hopes of fulfilling his ultimate stated 7 EFTA01078861 "goal." See Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (court of appeal quashing discovery order where party sought law firm client file relating to a different matter holding that "curiosity" about a law firm's records does not satisfy the relevance requirement and explaining that the contents of the "subpoena is a classic `fishing expedition' and the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of the law."); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife's bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: "indeed, the husband has failed to demonstrate what possible relevance the records might have in the proceeding below other than to harass the wife."). (emphasis added). Defendant's incredibly broad and unrelated demands include, for example, Request no. 24: "All documents concerning, relating or referring to your assertions that you met former President Bill Clinton, Former Vice President Al Gore and/or Mary Elizabeth "Tipper" Gore on Little Saint James Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands." See Exhibit 6, Request no. 24. Whether or not Jane Doe No. 3 met any of these individuals has absolutely nothing to do with the action before this Court. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 2003) (Florida Supreme Court holding that "we do not believe a litigant is entitled carte blanch to irrelevant discovery" and "`It is axiomatic that information sought in discovery must relate to the issues involved in the litigation, as framed in the pleadings.") (internal citations omitted). Defendant's Request demonstrates a blatant example of abuse of the subpoena power. Indeed, the face of many of Defendant's subpoena demands demonstrate that he is using the subpoena power of this Court to obtain discovery for the federal action. Request nos. I, 5, 6 and 9 all reference the "federal action" or specifically cite the declaration and case number "OS- SO736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON. Request no. 1, for example, demands: "All documents that reference by name, Alan M. Dershowitz, which support and/or confirm the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 24-31 of your Declaration dated January 19, 2015 and/or Paragraph 49 of your 8 EFTA01078862 Declaration dated February 5, 2015, which were filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No. OS-S0736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, [ECF No. 291-1] (the "Federal Action")." Defendant should not be using the subpoena power of this Court to issue a non-party subpoena for documents sought for a federal action.2 c. Category 3 — Documents that Contain Personal Financial Information Completely Irrelevant to this Action Defendant also wrongfully abuses the subpoena power to seek personal financial information from this non-party. See Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So. 2d 1027, 1034-38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quashing lower court's discovery order and finding irreparable harm to husband in disclosure of private financial information when wife's clear purpose was to wrongfully disclose the financial information to the press) (emphasis added); see also Granville v. Granville, 445 So. 2d 362 (Fla. I DCA 1984) (court of appeal overturning denial of protective order and finding that private financial information should have been protected from disclosure). The requests are clearly meant to intimidate and harass her by, for example, seeking information during the time she was the subject of sexual trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein. Request no. 20 seeks "All documents showing any payments or remuneration of any kind made by Jeffery Epstein or any of his agents or associates to you from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002." Whether Jeffrey Epstein paid minor children that he sexually trafficked has absolutely nothing to do with the action before this Court and there is no basis to force a non-party who was subject to this abuse to comply with a production demand on this topic. The subpoena also includes request for financial information relating to the media. Apparently, Defendant believes Jane Doe No. 3 has a book "deal" in the works. For example, Request no. 18 seeks: "All documents concerning any monetary payments or other consideration received by you from any 2 The requests relevant to this category are nos.: I, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 22, and 24. 9 EFTA01078863 media outlet in exchange for your statements (whether "on the record" or "off the record") regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Alan M. Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and/or being a sex slave." Whether Jane Doe No. 3 has interacted with the media has nothing to do with the Florida Defamation Action. As explained above, a non-party's personal financial information and other confidential information is subject to protection by this Court. See Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So. 2d 1027, 1034-38 (Ha. 4th DCA 1998). Accordingly, the requests relating to financial information from this non-party should be quashed;. d. Category 4 — Plainly Privileged Communications Defendant's subpoena requests seek documents that are plainly privileged. Florida courts are unequivocal in stating that an opposing party can never obtain attorney-client privileged materials. See Quarles & Brady LLP v. Birdsall, 802 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (quashing discovery order and noting "undue hardship is not an exception (to disclosure of privileged material), nor is disclosure permitted because the opposing party claims that the privileged information is necessary to prove their case.") (internal citations omitted). Non-party, Jane Doe No. 3, objects to all of Defendant's subpoena requests to the extent that they seek documents protected by the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense and common interest privileges and any other relevant privilege. Indeed, Jane Doe No. 3 should be protected from responding to Request no. 25 in its entirety because on its face it seeks solely privileged and confidential information relating to her retention of BSF.4 See Westco Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4ih DCA 2010) (court explaining that "[w]hen confidential information is sought from a non-party, the trial court must determine whether the requesting party establishes a need for the information that outweighs the privacy These Requests include nos. 9, 17, 18, 20 and 23. Specifically, Request no. 25 seeks: "All documents concerning your retention of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, including but not limited to: signed letter of retainer, retention agreement, explanation of fees, and/or any documents describing the scope of retention." 10 EFTA01078864 rights of the non-party."). Defendant has not established any basis for these privileged and confidential documents that outweighs this non-party's privacy rights. 3. The Subpoena Should Be Quashed In Its Entirety. If the Court Will Not Take That Action, at a Minimum, It Should Grant a Protective Order Severely Limiting The Areas Of Inquiry At Deposition And Grant Protections For This Victim Who Is Fearful Of The Defendant. This Court has the power to preclude and/or limit the deposition of non-party Jane Doe No. 3. Specifically, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) allows the Court to prevent a deposition from going forward "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense that justice requires," and courts routinely enter protective orders to reduce the burden on subpoenaed non-parties to a case, as well as in cases where the discovery sough is irrelevant. See, e.g., Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that the trial judge erred in allowing the deposition of certain non-parties where evidence sought was irrelevant); see also Citimortgage, Inc. v. Davis, No. 50 2009 CA 030523, 2011 WL 3360318 (Fla. 15'h Cir. Ct. April 4, 2011) (trial court granting protective order precluding a deposition noting "this deposition request is mere harassment" and had no relevance to the underlying dispute where the party was wrongfully using the discovery process for personal gain). Section 4 of Rule 1.280 provides that the Court can also limit the areas of inquiry of a deposition providing "that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope be limited to certain matters." Jane Doe No. 3 contends that the subpoena for her deposition should be quashed. If the Court, however, is inclined to allow a deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, then she respectfully requests the issuance of a Protective Order modifying the subpoena as set forth below. a. Testimony Limitations Non-party Jane Doe No. 3 respectfully requests that this Court limit the deposition to questions directly related to Defendant's defamatory statements about Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell. The Court should limit Defendant's ability to engage in a "fishing expedition" of this 11 EFTA01078865 victim to foster his goal of putting her into "jail" or of bringing a new action against Jane Doe No. 3. See Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Citimortgage, Inc. v. Davis, No. 50 2009 CA 030523, 2011 WL 3360318 (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Apr. 4, 2011). Defendant should be precluded from asking any questions about Jane Doe No. 3's experiences as a sexually trafficked minor. Defendant should be precluded from questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about individuals that she was sexually trafficked to or about other victims or individuals involved in the sexual trafficking orchestrated by Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant should be precluded from questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about any rapes that occurred when she was a minor child. Defendant should be precluded from questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about anything related to her sexual activity either as a minor or thereafter as these questions would only be intended to embarrass and harass this non-party witness. b. Language and Harassment Limitations In addition, Jane Doe No. 3 requests that the Court provide counsel with a cautionary notice, that counsel for Defendant may not harass the non-party victim in any way during the deposition. With respect to the language used at the deposition, the Defendant's counsel should be directed by the Court to not use any of the derogatory terms the Defendant has used in the press including calling Jane Doe No. 3 a "prostitute," a "liar," or a "bad mother" or any other similar derogatory and harassing language. c. Physical Location Limitations Non-party Jane Doe No. 3 has a valid and real basis to fear being in physical proximity of the Defendant. See Exhibit 8, Affidavit of Jane Doe No. 3. Accordingly, to the extent a deposition is to go forward, we would request that the Court direct that the Defendant not be present in the same room as non-party Jane Doe No. 3 and, instead, follow the testimony electronically from a separate location. In addition, non-party Jane Doe No. 3 respectfully requests that the Court hold that the physical location of the deposition should be the offices of 12 EFTA01078866 Jane Doe No. 3's attorney's Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, non-party Jane Doe No. 3 respectfully requests that this Court grant her Motion to Quash, or alternatively, that the Court enter an order limiting the scope of her document production and deposition as set forth above. Dated: April 9, 2015 Respectfully submitted, SHIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Telephone; Facsimile: By: /s/Sigrid S. McCawlev Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. Florida Bar No. 129305 Attorney for Non-Party Jane Doe No. 3 13 EFTA01078867 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 9, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by Electronic Mail to the individuals identified below. By:Js/Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Thomas E. Scott Steven R. Safra COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400 Miami. Florida 33156 Richard A. Simpson Mary E. Borja Ashley E. Eiler WILEY REIN, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for Defendant Alan Dershowitz Jack Scarola SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409-6601 Attorney for Plaintiffs 14 EFTA01078868 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA01078869 Judge losses 'sex slave' claims involving Prince Andrew - NY Daily News Page 1 of 4 ØD Clew me MI/9 re199 Pc 2 NOG, Never Lose Your Keys Again i1•:;!` n I Ltr qi Florida judge tosses `sex slave' claims involving Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz ey,y4F•i..emy 9Arli•GerGC99:4 I new Yor< Ns -.V Mt WS k,rtio,« Tre.9re Awl 7. 2c.s, 3 1. em r.e.NJ Trrrirr refill. »I S. It 41 PLO AAA nydn.~1013a1N9 Finn,* who maims Jenny Edna' made hi' 6 ..5" 514.1.'" RIIATIDST0RITS Peer* toots,. •• Danes La e isaneee • - • n MK« 'see 99re I tr.311/4.0 Mee rah WICiaor A Flomla pulse has tossed our eaptortve daunt Pam a wOman who sale flie rin towed info haling sea win hoglarna Ante A-Arew When she was a Renaper. Ina rtesg Tuesday. Jude! Nemeth Malta cloned a Dli by -Jane Doe No. 3 am Jane Doe No. 4' ID rillea,e er a I099,:uriel.93 Cose. use alegng the led, gave poderontal creamer lo taboos« prow Jedrey tonne Jane Doe No. 3 — ~so alonIlly has teen monied a se 31 — ~ Ina loornsisell mow Clew des Eras, turned her ado a 'Sex slave' lue him and ha rer and ~yes pals add', she was [Lit IS. Among mose she sad she was pushed who harms *claim.% were Ponce eelereJt flan: e and!~ — known re IIIe Elreivi peen as 'Hardy M91-- end lenitIl Detente Orer• Werar Mal DerrhOw92. Remain le stove durin Tor Food Ni :awn O..tti' rue Lin~l Miami boll accused of slavery kid, Imam?" asa: Antarres9 a le A r athiarm ":"INsi iongnloTyi rape of her 5' be, rffinglta WI V* aer,ttici Kenitra Sur s foe 9. dOregonwil dreams mo 91,199 one oar tes2etded lar NJ aner seemi:l/oer WI„tsnlo:STZ A .:5"C'SILPHS~ ' TROMDIL0 SII 4 htlplAvww.nydailynews.corninewsinational/judge-tosses-sex-slave-claims-involving-prince... 4/9/2015 EFTA01078870 Judge tosses 'sex slave' claims involving Prince Andrew - NY Daily News Page 2 of 4 so The "sex slave' claims made in the Jeffrey Epstein cast against the reds nave been tossed Cy a Florida judge. inwom Paine, Andrew Is seen leaving Verblet ski risen el Swittergard In January amid ms meringue scandal DeISIscwil, calor' ere claims a thetIOUS ties. end &Pied Mato to throw old the 'Ciatrageous and impertinent athrgatiOnS.' In his n...ng, Ne judge sae the court that COnSiOefed Mr UershOwittS arguments, tnd n finds Mal his inlervenhon Is onneceStary — were ape Doe NO 3s cum id decals' n an &Went detaiilrd hal alleged ayMil net Lleratheath and Olheri. inVading a tiAd orgy wet Andrew. Er Men. and Mier appaiently underage(' gas 'The faCtual details regarding *VS, wtio'n aid allege Die Jere Wee engaged in Sexual acemun we Inflater./ and irricennenl to teis cellist clam etheCailly COnS00eing the these dee.% involve non.pnrWS vino are n0t leaned 10 Inv respOnclerl Government Tone unnecessary de1Nh shot be sthelken' the NOVO MOW PM *SO %and then, was no reason ice the new Ooes inleivene in re case at as. since the engine. two plaint% sae Med suit on bruit of al of EriSlene vane six years ago. 'The Court rhos Iasi antic* dues not regret mama new flan CS MS Idle in the Proceednos: me !.ode wrote and %I n entmlv mieceSsary lc. Jane Joe 3 5410 Jane Doe 4 re proceed ere earths in thiS haler' the lodge dd say Ow women could be Mad as valresseS wten the ease goes to Mal 'The necessary Vane eat on of Jane Due 3 and Jan" Doe 4 in M.. cal. Ca be satisfied by offering Mew properly supposed ant icktvsnt. adman/Me. and non cont./satire — leSteilOny as needed: Maine wrote. Texas wom arrested aft blowtorch a beau Arad sal • her 10:. urea Cslork. • T.. South Cam member dig Setter pot gegen A LAI ve•••• Cameo swot SW Sow • 5 S.O. cop Mr Sieger char murder of V Scott A Atilt ref Camino was< enrIer m Tu4 Homeless, found in sit with moth c Melba -Os A waif :Oa &noel*, Cain 4 charged miming ova In dine and Ina 14464 hen: ▪ taoreg ova noiliti Of 4444, Baltimore ft member To gets reduce sentence rq cermerdi gang ean • Of PASen cea IMIrolt mom shoving 2 c in freezer I • Dense 404.0 two Urn NCO -.A nnuse Video show Minn. sorot fan off bar http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-tosses-sex-slave-claims-involving-prince... 4/9/2015 EFTA01078871 Judge tosses 'sex slave' claims involving Prince Andrew - NY Daily News Page 3 of 4 m•.e • • rm. lc* Alan Deiyhowir was planed to NW 11w Ilfcfot Wove out Inc "Sea slave' allegefron and Says he will tie vindicated DerShCwIle Ida Rte Clay News has Plealled sahl are deacon Dui he stall niers or going tined= end het heeyer3 lot Oelstranon. 'SAC was berg in eciorible but we Slant hey and she wel haw lo be Peptone her said -The end i earn .3 ISM anell 90 le ;all because she we repeat her N. and well be able lo prow it and are wal end op a" Per$0.1 lot porker As lot hs neel) 'Ws Confident nal 0; II< eta IS be vrialCalle geld Arc/body will dredge Slif16 rid is s caliph:try re:ade Jp slay Iltakmcnam Palace nes dented the AllegallanS Prisfe And iew *With MCI bC41 boaleaat ay a pctore of no ponce wart his am manned al orrnd weal A palate Seances' defined to common' on Me judge's ;Wog to The Maack:Cod I4eSS. A lawyer lOf the tour Does. Brea FAWArgli. vowed to press on WElt the free: kit E P110411 vianif wino the legs have acknowledges number m 11w doyen, 'We see pleased by the Cants clang fgagentaig that Jane Doe 3 aria 4 nave s r49 to partropale tht0 Vie tend feet WAS enlgiVenliOn; ne Sala In a StMenarce. toe 3' 14t1 'I'm nappy to gel lo parropale a teas impanel use' I :ZS pea acclime awn JaissOnda PROI40!ED STORIES Lane (swam Cots Arta, V.cl Sarni Min Singro•nael Campaign . • Forst Cool tens In.,... this ewle rowels all Simply tinter • wise and slate of anyone you know *NM will you Item today? Isom Election May Men nipped Dmiai.nNttanyartes Fewer And in. Ai, Ail...a IS Pholotronits inn WA 44a l'uu Laugh GSA /*LAP Sating for Tee Grarditil. Wet4Aletwi Al. lee Navas Reveals Star/line Kush Ness or, vp A unnitmly 0 wrier mist, wourwird d SEE IT! FM. I MlenaF W ocean A Swan f nod arAppad a ON Snalchirg • Fl 0hs% Sea c len &Bain' female Cal Two lernaleC isomers ova &mecums e e MOST ger I Cane tomb a Oe wry II 3 Acct.! TT. 4 lam saw S fawn Sc all 6 Slew Wait 7 Arc* Ern le 8 Taw 9 ac.'bat. 10 Stan +Pr o http://www.nydailynews.comthews/national/judge-tosses-sex-slave-claims-involving-prince... 4/9/2015 EFTA01078872 Judge tosses 'sex slave' claims involving Prince Andrew - NY Daily News Page 4 of 4 MORE FROM NYOAILYNEW$ WE RECOMMEND Michael Stager: The S.C. cop who Med Walter Scott Joe all" Snl Masc.,.. ell Kennedy Airport passengers left MUM al TSA chettpanis Yon *does 03VOIM Onion. 0 a 4•00410 AccOuril : lna 00 • Courses COMMENTS (24 p(yi a CC. Olt,' I Welt a tanvY4, JOHNNIE DONTGIVEADANIN 2 One At New Com/tub?, Gars Top Rath IRA C r I /CAS/ 115.0 anal Pr/ Pa0 0 gene telt a.RGO le pi INC IDUCtI5 Wt litEe..• SNIP 5 MARK 2 OHS AA Sure, teceoe not etety pose Ins the poop saw Ma: she ran a sPaciy sicry anc :cod %an wen sumo NA not potable at al wage wan a Woe OM ;stay we Vie page ems Raayll OR Magi ] Oa a* Tat O'MALLEY 2 dap AP 55115 NOW alit 00 Of Rif Ma mom V.Orfwast,t , Ol Al stare/ Seeman Ness tare 2 *A.. SHOW MORE COMMENTS XELJANZ ele.aar.7.• leen1 a en wilesew.. a.m....Rev...re* .."` "" "4.4".."" :ffiatATAR , SALE t. 1,00**. 505 a( s. am/ 'ave.... 114.10. wax.. use. Wwl <ass. vc.. tunes ...aias Ir. WEIS '5 eviteesSts• nice at Rd ANolit... Les Ore.....t. few V.Ecakv ttiaa.tMa http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-tosses-scx-slave-claims-involving-prince... 4/9/2015 EFTA01078873 EXHIBIT 2 EFTA01078874 Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute I News - Home Page I of 3 Local a .0 0 M Man Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute Famed attorney slams woman who claims he had underaged sex with her Author: Bob Norman, Reporter, Published On: Jan 22 2015 06:03:14 PM Mr Updated On: Jan 22 2015 06:20:00 PM EST PEMBROKE PARK, Eta. - Well-known attorney and Miami Beach resident Alan Dershowitz emphatically denied allegations made in newly-filed court papers that he had sex. six times with an underage girl who at the time was serving as a "sex slave" for wealthy financier and convicted sex offender -- Jeffrey Epstein. Related: Billionaire's 'sex &kyr' details allegations against Prince Andrew, Dershowitz "This is a woman who is a serial liar," Dershowitz told Local to News reporter Bob Norman. "She's lied, lied, lied, lied." "But she wasn't lying about being sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein," said Norman. "That is a different issue: said Dershowitz. 'That is between her and Jeffrey Epstein." http://www.local 1 0.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 2/19/2015 EFTA01078875 Alan Dershowitz: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute I News - Home Page 2 of 3 'fhe woman one of as many as go women who allege that Epstein recruited them while they were minors into a sex ring based at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. alleges in a 14-page affidavit — which included newly-released photos she said were taken by Epstein w en she was as -- that Epstein groomed her as "sex slave" to gratify not only him but his powerful friends. She wrote that she was introduced to Epstein at the mansion by heiress Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of the late British publisher Robert Maxwell, on the pretext that she would be paid to give him a "massage," which she wrote was Epstein's "code word for sexual encounters." "From the first time I was taken to Epstein's mansion that day, his motivations and actions were sexual, as were Maxwell's," writes in the affidavit. "My father was not allowed inside. I was brought up some stairs. There was allity, Epstein, on the table in the room. Epstein and Maxwell forced me into sexual activity with Epstein ... I was paid Sum." She wrote that she then began working for Epstein, and traveling around the country and world with him. "Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trained me to do what they wanted, including sexual activities and the use of sexual toys," she wrote. 'The training was in New York and Florida at Epstein's mansions. It was basically every day and was like going to school ... I was trained to be 'Everything a man wanted me to be.' It wasn't just sexual training -- they wanted me to be able to cater to all the needs of the men they were going to send to me." In the affidavit, she alleges that Dershowitz was one of those men and that she had sex with him six times beginning when she was 16 at Epstein's residences, as well as on his jet and private island. She also added details about her allegations that Epstein — who served 13 months in jail after being convicted of soliciting a minor for sex in 2008 — ordered her to have sex on three occasions with Prince Andrew in London at the age of 17, paying her $15,000 after the first instance. Read. the entire is-page affidavit here. Dershowitz saia was a prostitute and questioned whether she is now, at the age of 31, a fit mother for her three children. "She's now an admitted prostitute," said Dershowitz. "1 can tell you she is still a prostitute: she is selling these false stories now for money about me. That is a form of prostitution." "Do you have any concern calling her a prostitute when she was victimized at such an early age by a wealthy man?" Norman asked. "She was not victimized ... she made her own decisions in life," said Dershowitz. "But at the age of ig some would say ... she was taken advantage of," said Norman. "I'm talking about the age of to," said Dershowitz. "But it started when she was is," said Norman. "1 am not involved in that," he said. "I have no knowledge of that. That's between her, and the federal government and the people who victimized her. All I know is she has victimized me. At the age of 31 she has made up false allegations against me. She is a mother of three children, and she is now living a lie to her three children and the question is whether she is an adequate mother of her three children going around selling her false stories of prostitution." Dershowitz is an admitted long-time friend of Epstein's who frequented his homes at the time and other young girls were in Epstein's employ. But he insisted he never saw an underage girl in Epstein's company. A former Epstein employee, the late Alfredo Rodriguez, testified under oath that Dershowitz was at the Palm Beach mansion at the same time underage girls were at the home. htm://www.local 1 0.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-prostitute/3... 2/19/2015 EFTA01078876 Alan Dershowit2: 'Sex slave' accuser is serial liar, prostitute I News - Home Page 3 of 3 "That's not true," said Dershowitz. "I was never in Jeffrey Epstein's house or any of the houses in the presence of any young woman. Now were there other young women in other parts of the house giving massages when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. I can only say I never saw a young underage woman. If I had I would have left the house and never come back, period." He told Norman that he had one massage at Epstein's home and it was with an adult woman. "I kept my underwear on during the massage," he said. "I don't like massages particularly." One of the more salacious allegations made by is that Dershowitz "was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein." Dershowitz called that allegation absurd. "Alan Dershowitz was standing there and talking about what? The weather, the stock market? It's the most preposterous thing imaginable," said Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who has issued a denial.. basic claims in a sworn affidavit of his own, said he would willingly be deposed on the matter. attorneys have claimed that Dershowitz has refused to submit to deposition. When questioned about it, Dershowitz said he would be deposed in the case, but only after and her two lawyers are deposed. The ers h ve sued Dershowitz for defamation after he alleged they should be disbarred for initially putting allegations in court papers. "I am happy today to express my willingness to be deposed after the three of them are deposed," he said. 'That's the order it should occur because they are the accusers. I am the one who is defending myself against their accusations." Follow Local to News on Twitter ei WPI.GLocal to LA Copyright 20)5 by Locabo.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published. broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. C/ 2015 (?) 2015 httpi/www.local I 0.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-1 iar-prostitute/3... 2/19/2015 EFTA01078877 EXHIBIT 3 EFTA01078878 CNN SHOW: New Day 8:30 AM EST January 6, 2015 Tuesday TRANSCRIPT: 010606CN.V42 SECTION: NEWS; International LENGTH: 3114 words HEADLINE: Plan Crash Survivor's Steps; Celebrities Fight Sex Scandals; Remembering Mario Cuomo BYLINE: Alisyn Camerota, Martin Savidge, John Berman, Michaela Pereira, Paul Callan, Chris Cuomo, Ana Cabrera GUESTS: Wendy Murphy HIGHLIGHT: Friday night, seven-year-old Sailor Gutzler freed herself from the upside down wreckage of her family's plane, moving past the bodies of her mother, father, sister and cousin, and walked nearly a mile to Larry Wilkins' home in remote western Kentucky to get help. There are new developments in the sex scandal involving Prince Andrew and famed attorne Alan Dershowitz, including the fact that Dershowitz has counter sued Chris Cuomo, the son of the former governor of New York Mario Cuomo. reflects on his father's legacy as a politician and family man. BODY: JOHN BERMAN: All right, 32 minutes after the hour. Buckingham Palace took the rare step to speak out about the sex abuse accusations against Prince Andrew, but is talking about it really the best strategy? How to handle ugly accusations, next. CAMEROTA: New developments in the sex scandal involving Prince Andrew and famed attorney Alan Dershowitz. Moments ago we learned that Alan Dershowitz has counter sued that's the woman who says that the lawyer sexually abused her when she was a teenager. Dershowitz is demanding his name be removed from her lawsuit and is asking for damages. says that a wealthy investor forced her into sex slavery when she was a teenager to please his powerful friends, including Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. The accuser now says she is being re-victimized. All of this raising big questions of how public figures should fight back against ugly accusations. Let's bring in Paul Callan. He's a CNN legal analyst, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor to talk about all this, also former prosecutor Wendy Murphy will join. She's an adjunct professor of sexual violence at New England Law in Boston. EFTA01078879 Great to see both of you. OK, let's start with the news this morning. Paul, Alan Dershowitz, hours ago, has filed this countersuit in Florida because he feels he's being defamed by this lawsuit by this woman, . CNN is naming her because she has gone public with her name. So is that the best way for celebrities and high-profile people to handle allegations like this? PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Alan Dershowitz has done something you never see done in these cases. He's gone nuclear. I mean, he's going apoplectic. He's threatening to sue and he's starting his own lawsuit. Usually you try to make the whole thing go away so it's forgotten. There's a complexity to this lawsuit because the allegations against Dershowitz, that he slept with this 15-year-old, and, incidentally, Prince Andrew as well, were included in court documents related to another lawsuit. And normally, anything you say in a court document relating to a pending lawsuit is, there's immunity. You can't sue somebody for saying that. So Dershowitz was baiting saying, why don't you say it publicly and I'm going to sue you because it's a lie. But apparently he must have stumbled on some theory that would give him grounds to sue around this court immunity doctrine. So it will be interesting to see it today. CAMEROTA: Yes. Wendy, we have an example of Alan Dershowitz being so angry and so vociferous in denying these charges yesterday on NEW DAY. Watch this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY: I will take action. I am filing today a sworn affidavit denying categorically the truth. I'm seeking to intervene in the case. I am challenging her to file rape charges against me. I waive any statute of limitations, any immunity, because if she files a false rape charge against me, she goes to jail. The end result of this case should be she should go to jail, the lawyers should be disbarred and everybody should understand that I am completely and totally innocent. (END VIDEO CLIP) CAMEROTA: Wendy, what do you think about his strategy? Because there's one school of thought that says you never even dignify the allegations with a response. WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, I mean the problem is he is almost in a protest too much state of mind for me. You know, I think the way the prince is handling it is, in a sense, more credible because it's more restrained in that exact way, Alisyn, we don't dignify these kinds of things. Of course it's silly. Of course it's not true. You know, the problem with Alan Dershowitz's position is, he doesn't really know all of the evidence that they have. I mean what if this woman has, you know, intimate knowledge of things about his body parts, for example, that will be unassailable proof that, in fact, she did have access to his body. The kind of thing that no matter how much he yells and screams, he won't be able to rebut. That could be some pretty explosive proof against him. EFTA01078880 CAMEROTA: It could be but -- MURPHY: I'm glad he did it. CAMEROTA: Yes, I mean, you have to - MURPHY: Go ahead. CAMEROTA: You have to assume that because he's make so vocal and so public a response that he believes that there's nothing like that out there. Wendy, let me just stop you for a second - MURPHY: Yes. CAMEROTA: Because I want to tell you the victim in - the alleged victim in this case, has now responded to CNN and Alan Dershowitz for calling her a liar. Let me tell you what she says. "It appears I am now being unjustly victimized again. These types of aggressive attacks on me are exactly the reason why sexual abuse victims typically remain silent and the reason why I did for a long time. That trend should change. I'm not going to be bullied into silence." Wendy, your thoughts on her response? MURPHY: Yes, I -- you know, it is a reason, in my work, you know, in decades of this work, it is something victims talk about a lot. I'm not going to speak out, especially against a wealthy, powerful, and influential person because they will have the ability to sue me falsely. That's the fear that a lot of real victims have. Look, if Alan Dershowitz wants to use the legal system to demonstrate his innocence, he has the right to do that. The problem is, now that he's filed a public claim, the airing of all the details will come out, and what's he going to do if there is some kind of unassailable evidence against him? I mean he said, for example, he's only been at Jeffrey Epstein's house once and it was with his wife and children. What if it comes out that he was actually there, and there are photographs of him there on another occasion? CALLAN: Well, you have to - you know, but, Wendy, I think you have to assume, Dershowitz can't be that stupid. I mean he taught at Harvard for long enough that I assume that basic facts like that he's going to be certain on. And if Dershowitz is in fact innocent of this charge, then he's not worried about body parts or locations where sex took place if no sex did take place. CAMEROTA: Dershowitz also called for attorneys to be disbarred. He believes they should never have taken this case. Let me quickly read to you their statement in response to Alan Dershowitz. "Out of respect for the courts desire to keep this case from being litigated in the press, we are not going to respond at this time to specific claims of indignation by anyone. Nevertheless, we would be pleased to consider any sworn testimony and documentary evidence Mr. Dershowitz would like to provide which he contends would refute any of our allegations." Paul Callan, Wendy Murphy - MURPHY: Yes. CAMEROTA: We have to leave it there. We're running out of time. But, EFTA01078881 obviously, this case is not going away with Alan Dershowitz's new legal action this morning. We'll take it up again. Thanks so much for being here. We'd love to know what you think about all this. You can tweet us @newday on the best w